Kaustuv Ray vs Sri Chandramanishi Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3345 Cal

Form J(1)            IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                                     Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
                            C.R.R. 1742 of 2023
                                Kaustuv Ray
                                    Vs.
                         Sri Chandramanishi Kumar

For the petitioner           : Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, Sr. Adv.
                               Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
                               Mr. Mrityunjay Chatterjee, Adv.
                               Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Adv.
                               Mr. Rajdeep Mantha, Adv.

For the O.P.                 : Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on                     : 11.05.2023.

Judgment On                  : 11.05.2023.

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

Affidavit of service be kept with the record.

The instant revision is filed by the petitioner with the following

relieves:-

"In the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed that Your Lordships may

be graciously pleased to issue a Rule, calling upon the opposite party to

show cause as to why the impugned proceedings of O.A. No.798 of 2023

which is pending before the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), 4 th

Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

corresponding to Money Laundering Case No.04 of 2019 arising out of

ECIR/KLZO/11/2016 dated 4-10-2016 and ECIR/KLZO/01/2018 dated 31-5-

2018 which is pending before the Learned Judge (Special), C.B.I., Court

No.1, Bichar Bhavan, Kolkata shall not be quashed and/or set aside, call for

the records, peruse the same, after hearing the cause that may be shown

and also after hearing all the parties, to make the Rule absolute and/or to

pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper

And

Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to calling upon the opposite party

to give explanation about the reasons for suppressing the order dated

11/01/2023 passed by This Hon'ble Court in C.R.R. No.143 of 2023 in the

impugned proceeding at the time of hearing."

However, at the time of hearing it is pointed out by the learned

Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this Court while disposing of

CRR 143 of 2023 between the same parties passed a direction relating to

sealing and labelling of seized laptop and two mobile phones. This Court

also directed that after sealing and labelling, the said electronic devices

would be sent to CFSL for decoding or extraction of data from the said

electronic devices.

It is learnt from the learned Advocate for the opposite party

(Enforcement Directorate) that CFSL also decoded the data from the said

devices and the report has been submitted to the Enforcement Directorate.

The petitioner was served with a notice dated 8th February, 2023 by the

Administrative Officer of the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) under Section

8(1) of the PMLA stating, inter alia, that the Enforcement Directorate wants

to retain seized electronic devices including the laptop under the provision

of Section 17(4) of the said Act.

Section 17(4) of PMLA states :-

"The authority, seizing any record or property under sub-section (1)

or freezing any record or property under sub-section (1A) shall, within a

period of thirty days from such seizure or freezing, as the case may be, file

an application, requesting for retention of such record or property seized

under sub-section (1) of for continuation of the order of freezing served

under sub-section (1A), before the Adjudicating Authority."

The Enforcement Directorate has made aforesaid prayer so that the

seized electronic devices may be retained by the Enforcement Directorate.

At this stage, there is no scope for the Adjudicating Officer to consider the

extracted data by the CFSL. The Enforcement Directorate is statutorily

bound to have an order issued by the Adjudicating Authority to retain the

seized property. In such process, report of the CFSL cannot be considered

by the Adjudicating Authority.

Therefore, I do not find any reason for interference except putting it

on record that at the time of adjudication of the application under Section

17(4) of the PMLA, the Adjudicating Authority shall not consider the CFSL

report.

With the above direction, the instant revision is disposed of on

contest.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Mithun De/ A.R. (Ct).

Sl No.05.

D/L.